Seminar Series on Advanced Techniques & Tools for Software Evolution

Co-located to SATToSE 2017, we will have a SENECA EU-project training for PhD students, which SATToSE participants can join for free if they register to the main conference. This training session will be held on Tuesday, June 6th, at the Bitergia offices in Leganés.

We will have 5 renowned speakers from academia and industry, with four talks and one 2-hour tutorial. For the tutorial, you are asked to do a home assignment (see below) before the seminar (deadline is June 5th, 12 CEST). The seminar is software engineering specific, but much of it is surely applicable to other disciplines.

How to get to the venue:
(1) You can be directly at the venue at 10:00
(2) At 9:30 (sharp) a bus will depart from Plaza de Manuel Becerra, the venue for SATToSE. SATToSE participants do not have to register for the bus; URJC PhD students should mail me two days in advance for confirmation.

There will be a bus back to Madrid after the event. The bus will stop 18:00 in front of Prado Museum (who can be entered for free from 18:00 onwards - it closes at 20:00), and finally around 18:20 in the Plaza de Manuel Becerra.

Lunch is included for all those who do the home assignment (see below).

Wifi: there is Eduroam.

Home Assignment for the Tutorial:

An important question in the early stages of a research career is "How to get my paper accepted?". Obviously, there is no failsafe recipe to answer that question, but an important factor is to approach the question from the perspective of the reviewer. Approaching the writing of a paper from a reviewer's perspective thus reformulates the question into something more actionable: "How can I persuade a reviewer to champion my paper"?

During the SENECA PhD training day we will have one lecture on approaching paper writing from a reviewer's perspective. As a preparation for the occasion we have a little home assignment for you.

To allow off-line preparation of the review, the reviewing template looks as follows.

1. Summary
(provide a 4 sentence summary to help the PC-chairs who did *not* read the paper assess its value)

2. Assessment:
A: Good paper. I will champion it at the PC meeting.
B: OK paper, but I will not champion it.
C: Weak paper, though I will not fight strongly against it.
D: Serious problems. I will argue to reject this paper.

3. Expertise:
X: I am an expert in the subject area of this paper.
Y: I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert.
Z: My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.

4. Points in Favour
(With all of the above in mind, give a list of things you especially appreciated; telegram style)

5. Points to Improve
(With all of the above in mind, give a list of things you would like to see improved; telegram style.)